If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

New Conservative Party in Alberta?

Ex-premier Jim Prentice’s effort at unity through floor-crossing turned out to be a disaster. Jean concludes that “Albertans were so disgusted with it all that they ran into the arms of the NDP.”

He said the parties have to agree on common principles, and then find some mechanism to unite. Wildrose riding associations will offer to hold joint meetings with their Tory counterparts to “talk about the principles and policies which might unite us.”

Jean also urged his Wildrose MLAs to “actively engage” with PC riding groups to find common ground.

In this environment of low oil prices and NDP activism, this conservative unity drive could take shape with the same abruptness that often ends legislature feuds.

The hilarious thing about all the conservative rhetoric right now is that our new NDP government is functionally indistinguishable from a PC government post-Klein.

They operate in the same way, their policies are very very similar to the plans the PCs put forward, and their political maneuvering is strikingly identical.

While the least intelligent Albertans cry "socialism" and claim Notley somehow controls global oil prices, others are beginning to question if they have really voted in a government that behaves differently.

They operate in the same way, their policies are very very similar to the plans the PCs put forward, and their political maneuvering is strikingly identical. .

I don't remember a personal and corporate tax cut hike under the PC's, a lot of waste in the last years, but not a tax hike. I remember Ralph sending my family quite a bit of money. I'll take the later, over the former, and with a new party that follows that style of governance, I think come the next election NDP will be toast.

^I should imagine there would have been a fair bit of administrative cost to these cheques. Info gathered from different data basis etc. Some over time going on as it was a big undertaking. Not to mention cheques being returned as people had moved. Having to check if certain people had been here the required time to qualify for the money, people registering new borns etc. All kinds of admin stuff going on before and after the cheques were mailed. Hence a $400 cheque would balloon in cost due to administrative

Is there proof of sending a $400 cheque costing $500? Because if there is we better stop writing any cheques.

Not that I agree with Ralph bucks.

Well, if it costs $400 to send out a $500 dollar cheque, that kinda contradicts the purpose of Ralph Bucks.

If the government spends $400 to write a $500 cheque for(let's say) flu vaccine to a school somewhere, okay, that's a pretty steep cost to write the cheque, but the cheque itself wasn't the point of the endeavour. The vaccine was, and that did get to the school.

But the whole point of Ralph Bucks was to "put your money back in your pocket". But if we spend $500 dollars of your money to give you $400 of your money, well, that's not giving you your money back.

A well-attended unite the right meeting in Red Deer Saturday resulted in members overwhelmingly voting for a third party, rejecting the notion of uniting under either of the existing right wing parties in the province.

Former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Rick Orman said the vote was concise.

About 400 participants from around the province were given four options. Stick with the status quo, unite under the Wildrose party, unite under the PCs or form a new entity.

Starting a third party, without first shutting down the PCs and Wildrose, is an obvious prelude to vote-splitting. But, in fairness, these guys were probably stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea, with no options that were particularly attractive.

I'm a bit puzzled by Rick Orman's comment - what exactly does he mean by "reactionary right wing" and "radical right wing"?

"What we have to identify is the sweet spot between the concern about the reactionary right wing of the Wildrose and the radical right wing, if you will, of the PC party," Orman said. "There is a belief, and it was in this room and in the sessions, that there is a sweet spot in between there."

“You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

I'm a bit puzzled by Rick Orman's comment - what exactly does he mean by "reactionary right wing" and "radical right wing"?

"What we have to identify is the sweet spot between the concern about the reactionary right wing of the Wildrose and the radical right wing, if you will, of the PC party," Orman said. "There is a belief, and it was in this room and in the sessions, that there is a sweet spot in between there."

I was confused too. When you're talking about conservatives, "radical" usually means the same thing as "reactionary", that is, far right.

By most reckonings, the conservative political spectrum in Alberta would go, from left to right...

Left wing Of The Tories
Centre of the Tories
Right wing of the Tories
Left wing of Wildrose
Centre of Wildrose.
Right wing of Wildrose

So, assuming that "radical" and "reactionary" both mean the far right of their respective parties, Orman would seem to be saying that he wants something resembling a left-wing or centrist faction of Wildrose to come to the fore.

BUT...

I think he might be using "radical" to mean "left-wing", which in a conservative context means something like Red Tory. And he's saying that Wildrose, as a whole, is reactionary(ie. right-wing), and the Tories, as a whole, are radical(ie. left-wing). So he wants a party that occupies a centre position between the Tories on the left and Wildrose on the right. Back to the graphs...

Tories
New Party
Wildrose

That's the best guess I can make. He definitely needs a refresher course in political terminology.

it's hard to have a "new" conservative party in alberta when we don't have an "old" conservative party in alberta. alberta has a "progressive conservative" party that rose to power on the progressive half and almost destroyed itself when it forgot that legacy. there is no progressive in the wild rose party. while they both espouse fiscally conservative government, with the wild rose that seems to be the end and with the progressive conservatives that is a means to an end. there will be no merger - or at least no successful merger - because those ends are incompatible with each other. that's what led to the wild rose in the first place. not recognizing that was the downfall of the "prentice and smith" party and would be the downfall of any united party or any party attempting to represent itself as an alternative to both of them. successful political parties are about being elected based on leadership and principle, not on being elected simply to be elected. i have long been a pc supporter "from a distance" and at the ballot box. i could not vote wild rose nor ndp nor liberal so i'm not sure where this will leave me come the next election. but in the interim, despite the fundamental differences i have with the ndp in many areas including the current budget, if i had to choose between rachel's budget and ralph's, it would be rachel's in a heartbeat...

Most Albertans don't agree with you, this is a one term wonder. The only question is if we will have a minority Conservative party, or a majority one, and what that party will be called. We need incentives for people to start businesses, at a 48 / 49 percent top personal tax rate, there is no Alberta advantage and will be no meaningful diversification. That needs to be fixed.

if i had to choose between rachel's budget and ralph's, it would be rachel's in a heartbeat...

it was budgets like Rachel's which lead to Ralph's initial budgets. If governments prior to Ralph had been responsible and not had operational expenses exceeding revenues, the drastic cutting wouldn't have been needed. Rachel has built on Redford, and will leave the next government a 58 billion dollar debt hangover (we had no debt 10 years ago), she is setting up the next Klein, instead of moderately scaling back costs to prevent that necessity.

^ People of your opinion are a dying breed in this province. Get used to an NDP government long term in Alberta.

No, you are in the minority / dying breed - experimented with the left, and now realize it was a foolish mistake - 64% are now supporting WR or PC's, with the NDP in third. Change is needed sometimes, the PC's abused their power, but it was the wrong change:

In Alberta, the Wildrose was narrowly ahead in a three-way pile-up with 33 per cent, followed by the Progressive Conservatives at 31 per cent and the New Democrats at 27 per cent. The Liberals had 5 per cent and the Alberta Party just 4 per cent support. This represents a rather big spike for the leaderless PCs, though Brian Jean's Wildrose and Rachel Notley's NDP have been jostling for position since the May 2015 election.

if i had to choose between rachel's budget and ralph's, it would be rachel's in a heartbeat...

it was budgets like Rachel's which lead to Ralph's initial budgets. If governments prior to Ralph had been responsible and not had operational expenses exceeding revenues, the drastic cutting wouldn't have been needed. Rachel has built on Redford, and will leave the next government a 58 billion dollar debt hangover (we had no debt 10 years ago), she is setting up the next Klein, instead of moderately scaling back costs to prevent that necessity.

Ah, the irresponsibility of Tory governments prior to Ralph's, eh? So, really, you're pinning your hopes on a second coming of your hero. How misguided. How sad.

if i had to choose between rachel's budget and ralph's, it would be rachel's in a heartbeat...

it was budgets like Rachel's which lead to Ralph's initial budgets. If governments prior to Ralph had been responsible and not had operational expenses exceeding revenues, the drastic cutting wouldn't have been needed. Rachel has built on Redford, and will leave the next government a 58 billion dollar debt hangover (we had no debt 10 years ago), she is setting up the next Klein, instead of moderately scaling back costs to prevent that necessity.

the actual numbers don't support your assumptions or your conclusions...

^I see green for Klein and red for pretty much everyone else post Lougheed, which is supportive of what I wrote. The 58b debt hangover is what is projected for 2019. Redford had surplus last year on $100 oil, but also had massive spending increases.

Debt clock for Alberta:, almost 20b and growing about a thousand every second or so:

I just don't think Alberta is as conservative as it's thought to be. Hundreds of thousands of transplants from across the country, and from overseas, have moved to Alberta in the last twenty years. Most of them came here for a job, buy a house, and raise a family. Not to partake in a right-wing movement. LOL!

Last edited by Bill; 02-05-2016 at 09:50 PM.

The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
It's heaven and hell!

I just don't think Alberta is as conservative as it's thought to be. Hundreds of thousands of transplants from across the country, and from overseas, have moved to Alberta in the last twenty years. Most of them came here for a job, buy a house, and raise a family. Not to partake in a right-wing movement. LOL!

Wanna bet? A big part of why I came here was because of the strong economy, and a big part of that, is fiscal discipline. If anything, I find immigrants to Alberta are the most conservative fiscally, they tend to be successful people who like having more opportunity than they had back home. Keep trying to spin the polls you don't like though...

I just don't think Alberta is as conservative as it's thought to be. Hundreds of thousands of transplants from across the country, and from overseas, have moved to Alberta in the last twenty years. Most of them came here for a job, buy a house, and raise a family. Not to partake in a right-wing movement. LOL!

Alberta hasn't been conservative since we got infected by the neoliberal plague in the 90s. Conservatism is dead all across North America at this point.

^changing the labels doesn't change what it is. Fiscal conservatist / neo liberal, Bloomberg explains it, the only fiscal conservative we have had recently was Klein, now we have the exact opposite:

“ To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets – not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns – and by all indications, we've got one coming. —Michael Bloomberg

The longer we take to get back in balance, the more painful its going to be when we try to. Just banking on higher oil prices doesn't "fix it" one day, because when revenues go up, so do all the spending demands, as we saw.

I remember seeing research that most of the immigrants to Alberta from other parts of the country were more conservative than those born here.

Yeah, I've long been suspicious of the theory that inward migration is the reason for any drift to the left in Alberta.

Prior to 2015, the best showings for the modern Alberta left were in 1986 and 1989. There was an arguable swing back to the right in '93, with the ostensibly leftish Liberals sweeping the oppositon benches on a platform of "massive and brutal cuts". By 2001, the Liberals had severely reduced representation in the legislature, with the New Democrats experiencing at best a VERY modest revival.

So, going by the "outsiders = left" theory, there must have been a big influx of migrants in 1986, who stuck around until at least '93, but had all gone back to their home provinces by 2001, only to return in a mass wave in 2015. Suffice to say, I'm pretty dubious about that.

^changing the labels doesn't change what it is. Fiscal conservatist / neo liberal, Bloomberg explains it, the only fiscal conservative we have had recently was Klein, now we have the exact opposite:

“ To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets – not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns – and by all indications, we've got one coming. —Michael Bloomberg

The longer we take to get back in balance, the more painful its going to be when we try to. Just banking on higher oil prices doesn't "fix it" one day, because when revenues go up, so do all the spending demands, as we saw.

Actually, changing the label is very important because it reflects a massive ideological shift that did in fact occur.

Alberta historically was conservative in terms of red tory communitarianism. Fiscal prudence as you say, but in a very different regard. This traditional conservatism viewed society, or the province, in a familial fashion and stressed the importance of building the economy as a whole. Fiscal prudence meant ensuring that ends could meet, and spending was done based on real money earned. In the Alberta context, this heavily drew from "farm values" - people wanted a government that behaved like a responsible family leader did.

Neoliberalism is completely different. It stresses minimal government influence as a rule, with no exception for nuance. If the economy or part of the population suffers, that is not an issue. The goal of this policy is to allow individuals the opportunity to maximize their own personal wealth to the highest degree possible, even if everyone else suffers. Fiscal prudence means removing the government's role to a minimal level.

In the Alberta context, I would posit that this ideological shift happened due to greed and greed alone. A new class of worker rose up due to oil wealth that threw aside the old farm values and cared only about maximizing their short-term returns. Unfortunately, this policy option has very serious long-term repercussions.

In the Alberta context, I would posit that this ideological shift happened due to greed and greed alone. A new class of worker rose up due to oil wealth that threw aside the old farm values and cared only about maximizing their short-term returns. Unfortunately, this policy option has very serious long-term repercussions.

The difficulty with this theory is that the Klein Revolution in Alberta was quickly followed by a similar descent into neo-liberalism in Ontario, ie. The Common Sense Revolution of Mike Harris, and the eventual adoption of the same ethos(with Canada-wide support) by the Stephen Harper government. In fact, the budget-slashing aspect of all this had arguably begun under Chretien in the 90s, with cuts to EI and downloading to the provinces.

But I don't think that can all be explained by greedy oil workers, who would not have been a significant force in either Ontario or Canada as a whole. And oil was at least as much of a factor in the Alberta culture/economy under Peter Lougheed, the epitome of Red Toryism.

Perhaps I should start a new left/center party to split the vote so the right parties win. Alberta Progressive Democratic Party has a nice ring to it. I'm conservative so obviously people would find all sorts of contradictions between perceived left leaning issues and my viewpoint.

Perhaps I should start a new left/center party to split the vote so the right parties win. Alberta Progressive Democratic Party has a nice ring to it. I'm conservative so obviously people would find all sorts of contradictions between perceived left leaning issues and my viewpoint.

Well, we've already got the NDP, Liberals, and Alberta Party on the left, so you'd have a bit of competition for voter attention.

But I just read in Thomson's column that those people at the convention in Red Deer were thinking of infilitrating the Alberta Party, to move it to the right. Or, more precisely, BACK to the right, since that's where they were before they got mover leftward in 2010.

I only recognize two names on there, Ron Ghitter and Preston Manning. Kinda surprised to see those two in the same movement, especially since I'm guessing that Manning's role would have been well-known to anyone signing up. Doubt he's keeping a low profile.

I only recognize two names on there, Ron Ghitter and Preston Manning. Kinda surprised to see those two in the same movement, especially since I'm guessing that Manning's role would have been well-known to anyone signing up. Doubt he's keeping a low profile.

If its a movement with Manning and Ghitter in it it should be called a bowel movement.

If Alberta's unite the right movement doesn't get its act together, Ottawa Conservatives, including former prime minister Stephen Harper, could well step in, says one political insider.

According to Ian Brodie, former chief of staff to Stephen Harper, right-wing MPs have long been "frustrated" by the inability of the Wildrose and PC parties to work together in a province where the federal Conservatives are by far the most popular political party.

I'm curious to see if this would improve the odds of the right uniting under one banner again or just fracture it further.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

Brodie said Harper is watching Alberta politics intently, even if he's keeping a low profile.

"I don't doubt that he's paying close attention, and his expertise and advice will be available to whoever can make it work."

Usually when someone begins their statement with "I don't doubt that..." it means something like "Well, I have no direct information, but I'm sure that's true".

That said, I don't doubt(heh) that Harper is following events in Alberta. I wonder if his personal standing is such that he could just waltz in, bang his fist on the table, and say "Okay, you clowns, let's get united NOW!" and it would just happen.

Kenney expects NDP supporters will join his unite-the-right movement

Keeney is running a strong campaign and is saying the right stuff:

“There are a lot of people in the public sector who might have voted NDP last time who are realizing they cannot have a strong public sector unless we have a growing economy – union members who are losing their jobs in the coal mines because of the NDP, nurses and teachers who want a more flexible and responsible public services, hard-pressed taxpayers,” he said.

Afterward, Mr. Kenney said the “blue-collar NDP spirit” is not represented by the current “ideological” government of Premier Rachel Notley.

“I’ve met NDP union members who said they didn’t vote for a carbon tax and they didn’t vote to shut down the coal industry,” he said.

“They didn’t vote for $45-billion in debt. I absolutely believe if we put together one big, broad new party, we’re going to get a lot of traditional NDP voters supporting it,” Mr. Kenney said.

...

Mr. Kenney said that if he is elected Alberta Progressive Conservative leader in March of next year he would immediately begin talks with the Wildrose.

He said he is willing to take Wildrose Leader Brian Jean at his word that he’s open to discussing a merger.

^I'm happy to report, per the polls, most Albertan's disagree with you. Unfortunately we are going to have 2 1/2 more years of NDP economic suffering / job losses / industry damage, before the change can happen.

Kenney seems to be blaming the NDP for the current economic downturn. Just like the other PCs, and just like the wild rose. As a fiscal conservative (of the don't spend more than you have type, not the cut to the bone type) I refuse to consider voting for a party with such a poor grasp on this province's economy.

^^oil prices were lower than today, when Klein was in power. He balanced the budgeted in an economy like today's. I think Kenney will do that too. If it means some government departments are eliminated, or have their spending budgets / staff payroll cut by 20%, so be it. That's what is needed to give the private sector confidence to invest in Alberta again / create real jobs, along with policies that give certainty. The cost uncertainty created by the proposed carbon tax / minimum wage increase / bungled coal phase out are doing real damage to the economy right now at the worst time possible. That's having every bit as big an impact on jobs now as the oil prices are (we need to learn to live with these prices, and can't afford these ivory tower socialist luxuries).

Most jobs in this type of economy are going to be created by small businesses. Many are failing. And those that are doing ok, nobody is expanding because they are all terrified of:

1. how much their utilities are going to go up
2. how they are going to be able to keep staff when the minimum wage hike comes in.

This is **** poor economic policy right now. Larger companies are scared of investing because they see the big government deficits, and they know, if oil prices don't rebound, that means more taxes are coming (at least, if NDP stay in). Most of the investment we see is private equity bargain hunting, not new projects, which we need for employment.

And in the PC-run economy people were afraid of how much their utilities would be going up (see: deregulation) and small businesses were concerned about keeping staff when the government's resource overheated the oil industry and drove up wages.

and small businesses were concerned about keeping staff when the government's resource overheated the oil industry and drove up wages.

Yeah, its just awful to a government that creates the conditions / business certainty to allow companies to be profitable so that they can keep staff or pay them well (which means more tax revenue / higher living standards), as opposed to a government that forces companies to pay staff more when they are making losses (which surprise surprise, means layoffs), and accelerates the shut down of an entire industry (coal) at a time of resource depression.

The government greated conditions for ONE INDUSTRY to make oodles of money, often at the expense of others. Those high public sector wages you hate? they're at least as much the result of government being forced to due to high wages elsewhere as they are to pandering and bad negotiations.

The government greated conditions for ONE INDUSTRY to make oodles of money,

No, its the same for all industry's, reasonable taxes, and business certainty inspires the confidence to invest. That there is more money to be made in one sector of the economy than another is for industry to figure out, not government. As to the high government salaries, if decide to go that way during boom time, like private sector, then you have go back like the private sector too, when times go bad, which means job layoffs / salary cuts. You can't have your cake of a government job for life, and all the benefits that go with that, and also a private sector level of wage growth in the "good times", without private sector level cuts in the "bad times". Government spending is totally unsustainable right now, and the debt being built is going to hurt for a long time.

^it doesn't look like next to nothing to me (and as the recent royalty studied showed, could not be increased without making the industry uncompetitive), about 9b per year through the 2000's (some years higher, some a bit lower, that was 2014):